This could indeed seem quite paradoxical in a country such as Great Britain where the official religion is Christianity, and more specifically Anglicanism, with hence a majority of Christians: Catholics and Protestants gather 71% of the British population. There is a specific historical reason for it: Before the reign of Henri VIII, Great Britain was a catholic country, but when the Pope refused to let him divorce from his first wife, he decided to create the Anglican Church. Protestantism became the most important religion in the country. (Protestantism had already spread before the schism)

But not all similar cases were treated the same way: three other British Christians, who considered themselves the victims of discrimination in their professional lives, contrary to Mrs. Eweida, were dismissed. In the case of Shirley Chaplin, for instance, who also lodged a complaint for not being able to wear a cross around her neck during her hours of duty, the court estimated that the fact that the employer’s reasons were about safety measures was enough to make Shirley’s complaint obsolete.

Such an event has huge repercussions on how Britain is perceived abroad. The fact that even the European Court of Human Rights decided to take Nadia Eweida’s side shows that there are contradictions inside a company that is a symbol of Great Britain abroad. Hence, we could consider this as a humiliation for the British government and David Cameron who promised to change the law to enshrine a worker’s right to wear a cross.

Is it a way for the European Union to insist on the weakness of the British system? This could indeed be a way for the Europeans to aim at the unfairness of the British judiciary system. So as to soften the increasing political tensions between Great Britain and the European Union, David Cameron twitted his support to Mrs. Eweida: “Delighted that principle of wearing religious symbols at work has been upheld – ppl shouldn’t suffer discrimination due to religious beliefs ».